Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2066670. ; Size: 394K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Courts routinely engage in counterfactual analysis – considering what might have been, had things been different – in a variety of legal contexts (such as determining causation for tort claims and establishing damages). But in the last two terms, the Supreme Court has issued several opinions restricting the use of counterfactual reasoning in the context of federal habeas corpus review of state criminal convictions (under §2254(d) of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA). Specifically, the Court has refused to consider what state courts might have done if presented with a slightly different set of facts or law. This practice leaves a group of petitioners without redress for acknowledged constitutional violations.

This Note presents a novel framework for categorizing the modes of counterfactual reasoning in which courts engage. It then analyzes the Court’s decision in Cullen v. Pinholster and related opinions, examining them for possible explanations for the Court’s departure in habeas cases from its usual practice of accepting the need for counterfactuals. It concludes that the Court has given no clear reason why it should depart from the usual background principle that counterfactual reasoning is a valid method of analysis. Finally, it proposes a more coherent scheme for addressing counterfactuals in habeas proceedings.